https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153934 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person dealt with goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation; where the assessee was not shown to have such knowledge and the goods were not themselves proposed for confiscation, the penalty could not stand. The commentary also states that Rule 26(2)(i), inserted on 1 March 2007, could not be applied to conduct from October 2003 to March 2004, as a penalty provision cannot operate retrospectively. The result discussed is that the penalty was deleted, enhancement failed, and the assessee's appeal succeeded. en-us Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jun 2017 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153934 Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that a person dealt with goods knowing, or having reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation; where the assessee was not shown to have such knowledge and the goods were not themselves proposed for confiscation, the penalty could not stand. The commentary also states that Rule 26(2)(i), inserted on 1 March 2007, could not be applied to conduct from October 2003 to March 2004, as a penalty provision cannot operate retrospectively. The result discussed is that the penalty was deleted, enhancement failed, and the assessee's appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153934